Shinnecock Indian Nation v. United States
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5541
| Fed. Cir. | 2015Background
- The Shinnecock Indian Nation sued New York state and local governments in 2005 asserting that an 1859 conveyance deprived the Nation of tribal lands and seeking damages and possessory relief; the district court dismissed the suit as barred by laches.
- The Nation appealed that dismissal to the Second Circuit; that appeal remains pending.
- In 2012 the Nation filed in the Court of Federal Claims seeking $1.105 billion from the United States, alleging the federal government breached trust duties (under the Non-Intercourse Act and federal common law) by denying effective judicial redress through the federal courts.
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the claims were unripe and fell outside the Indian Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed: (1) the breach-of-trust claims as unripe because resolution depended on the pending Second Circuit appeal, and (2) alternatively held the claims were not within the Tucker Act; it also denied leave to amend to add a judicial-takings claim as futile.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed on ripeness, vacated the Tucker Act jurisdictional ruling, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the breach-of-trust claims without prejudice; it also affirmed denial of leave to add a judicial-takings claim for lack of authority to review an Article III court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness of Nation’s breach-of-trust claims against the U.S. | Claims ripe now because federal-court denial already occurred; delay will bar suit by limitations. | Claims unripe because they depend on outcome of pending appeal in Second Circuit; accrual waits for final federal-court resolution. | Claims are unripe; dismissal without prejudice required; statute of limitations not yet started to run. |
| Tucker Act jurisdiction / money-mandating source (Non-Intercourse Act & federal common law) | Non-Intercourse Act and federal common law mandate compensation from the U.S. for failing to provide redress. | Even if ripe, alleged sources do not clearly supply a money-mandating remedy within Tucker Act jurisdiction. | Court of Federal Claims’ alternative holding on lack of Tucker Act jurisdiction vacated as premature; jurisdictional merits depend on concrete claims after appeal resolves. |
| Leave to amend to plead a judicial-takings claim | Should be allowed to assert that the district court’s dismissal effected a compensable judicial taking. | Amendment would require review of an Article III court’s judgment and is thus beyond Court of Federal Claims’ authority. | Denial of leave to amend affirmed: Court of Federal Claims cannot review or collaterally attack Article III decisions; judicial-takings claim properly rejected. |
| Accrual and statute-of-limitations concern | Delaying adjudication risks permanent bar under 28 U.S.C. § 2501. | Accrual for claims based on federal-court actions occurs only after final federal-court decision, so limitations not yet running. | Accrual waits until federal-court system reaches final decision; statute of limitations does not presently bar the Nation. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197 (Sup. Ct.) (laches and disruptive nature of ancient land claims)
- Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266 (2d Cir.) (application of laches to Indian land claims)
- Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 708 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir.) (takings claim accrual and ripeness principles)
- Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568 (Sup. Ct.) (ripeness—claims based on contingent future events are not ripe)
- Adair v. United States, 497 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir.) (single-step Tucker Act money-mandating analysis)
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (Sup. Ct.) (Tucker Act requires a money-mandating source of substantive law)
- Allustiarte v. United States, 256 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir.) (Court of Federal Claims lacks authority to review merits of Article III court decisions)
- Boise Cascade Corp. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir.) (distinguishing cases where Court of Federal Claims may hear takings claims not adjudicated by Article III court)